Start David Garrard this week (1 Viewer)

[JaxBill]

A couple of things:

1) JDR basically called out Garrard saying that David "missed some throws that he could have tried". So I think the coach is prodding him to NOT check down so much. Whether that results in him forcing the ball is something else.

2) I re-watched the Colts game on shortcuts and that was about as vanilla playcalling as possible. From my unofficial count, they called one play-action pass, threw zero times from a run formation and ran the ball four times from a passing formation. With the way that the Colts were selling out for the run, I'm shocked that play-action wasn't called more. No doubt Garrard has to do a better job with the ball, but that playcalling was horrific.

 

[bostonfred]

The Cards have allowed just 209 yards passing and only one passing TD in game 1.

your kidding right? They played SF in game 1. Not exactly a offensive juggernaut.

I'm not kidding at all. You're right that San Francisco isn't exactly an offensive juggernaut. But the more important point is that Jacksonville isn't, either.

Shaun Hill (2008) 62.8%, 227.3 YPG, 7.1 YPA, 13 TDs and 8 INTs in 9 starts

David Garrard (2008) 62.6%, 226 YPG, 6.8 YPA, 15 TDs and 13 INTs in 16 starts

They're almost identical. If anything, Hill was better last year - in every category.

In their one game so far this year:

Shaun Hill 58.1%, 6.7 YPA, 209/1/0

David Garrard 50%, 4.4 YPA, 122/0/0

Again, Hill has been better than Garrard so far thisyear - although according to Chase's analysis, you'd expect it, since he played against the easier matchup of Arizona.

The thing is, if a guy who compares so closely to Garrard only managed 209/1/0 against this supposedly soft defense, and Garrard is coming off such a down week, the quality of this "good matchup" (against an improved Arizona secondary, no less) loses a little of its luster.

This concludes today's lesson. Come back tomorrow, when we'll discuss why saying "your kidding" is unacceptable.

 

[Banger]

A couple of things:1) JDR basically called out Garrard saying that David "missed some throws that he could have tried". So I think the coach is prodding him to NOT check down so much. Whether that results in him forcing the ball is something else.2) I re-watched the Colts game on shortcuts and that was about as vanilla playcalling as possible. From my unofficial count, they called one play-action pass, threw zero times from a run formation and ran the ball four times from a passing formation. With the way that the Colts were selling out for the run, I'm shocked that play-action wasn't called more. No doubt Garrard has to do a better job with the ball, but that playcalling was horrific.

the play calling, the ultra-conservative playcalling, is my biggest fear of Garrard. I still can't get out of my head last week down by 8 with a few minutes left in the game on 3rd and 2 from the 6 yard line or so and they run and then again on 4th down. That being said, I think he's a decent gamble this week.

 

[Horses Mouth]

Cutler to the bench. Garrard to the white courtesy phone.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

The Cards have allowed just 209 yards passing and only one passing TD in game 1.

your kidding right? They played SF in game 1. Not exactly a offensive juggernaut.

I'm not kidding at all. You're right that San Francisco isn't exactly an offensive juggernaut. But the more important point is that Jacksonville isn't, either.

Shaun Hill (2008) 62.8%, 227.3 YPG, 7.1 YPA, 13 TDs and 8 INTs in 9 starts

David Garrard (2008) 62.6%, 226 YPG, 6.8 YPA, 15 TDs and 13 INTs in 16 starts

They're almost identical. If anything, Hill was better last year - in every category.

In their one game so far this year:

Shaun Hill 58.1%, 6.7 YPA, 209/1/0

David Garrard 50%, 4.4 YPA, 122/0/0

Again, Hill has been better than Garrard so far thisyear - although according to Chase's analysis, you'd expect it, since he played against the easier matchup of Arizona.

The thing is, if a guy who compares so closely to Garrard only managed 209/1/0 against this supposedly soft defense, and Garrard is coming off such a down week, the quality of this "good matchup" (against an improved Arizona secondary, no less) loses a little of its luster.

This concludes today's lesson. Come back tomorrow, when we'll discuss why saying "your kidding" is unacceptable.

 

[Possum]

A couple of things:1) JDR basically called out Garrard saying that David "missed some throws that he could have tried". So I think the coach is prodding him to NOT check down so much. Whether that results in him forcing the ball is something else.2) I re-watched the Colts game on shortcuts and that was about as vanilla playcalling as possible. From my unofficial count, they called one play-action pass, threw zero times from a run formation and ran the ball four times from a passing formation. With the way that the Colts were selling out for the run, I'm shocked that play-action wasn't called more. No doubt Garrard has to do a better job with the ball, but that playcalling was horrific.

the play calling, the ultra-conservative playcalling, is my biggest fear of Garrard. I still can't get out of my head last week down by 8 with a few minutes left in the game on 3rd and 2 from the 6 yard line or so and they run and then again on 4th down. That being said, I think he's a decent gamble this week.

I live in Florida and the Jags are on TV all the time (although blackouts will change that this year) - Del Rio's teams are borderline unwatchable offensively.Still, I'm considering starting DG over Schaub this week - obviously he's not an elite QB talent but I do think that with better playcalling and a head coach who feels that scoring points is a good idea that he could be a solid player. He doesn't make many mistakes and he has excellent mobility.

 

[jafo]

Garrard looks to be a better option than Big Ben this week. I was already planning on plugging him in this week before I saw the thread. I like a website that make bold predictions and stand by them. Should be an interesting thread for the week to come.

 

[cjack]

I scanned this thread very quickly, and it looks like these points have been made, but just for insurance.

I too don't understand Dodd's affection for Garrard. Here's a guy who passed for two TDs only three times last year, only three times, and two of those games were against the Browns and the Lions. Now, in fairness, he did have two other games where he added a rushing score to a passing TD, against the Texans and Colts. But, let's face it, this guy's upside is 2 TDs. I'd have to be pretty desperate at QB to play a guy, much less draft a guy, whose weekly upside is 2 TDs.

In respect to Arizona's pass defense against teams outside the NFC West last year, please note that those numbers were skewed by playing teams from the NFC East and AFC East.

Garrard only sniffs the top 10 QB rankings due to his durability relative to other QBs. When you figure in PPG rankings for QBs, he drops down.

 

[whitem0nkey]

Garrard looks to be a better option than Big Ben this week. I was already planning on plugging him in this week before I saw the thread. I like a website that make bold predictions and stand by them. Should be an interesting thread for the week to come.

i'm in the same boat, Big Ben and Garrard. and i'm leaning toward Garrard this week.

 

[Johnny Ice]

Was starting Garrard over Schaub anyway but this is a quite interesting take.

 

[Kuz]

As somebody who is currently feeling that I may have put too much stock into Dodds' "perfect draft" article this year, I really hope you are right.

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.Chase touted the strength of Arizona's secondary and picked them in his DBC article and is now saying a middle of the pack QB is a top 5 start this week because he's playing against Arizona.What exactly am I paying for here?The perfect draft strategy works really well but when you're getting great value on Brady Brees and Rodgers in a draft (taking them below their ADP) you don't pass them up.(Other than the subscriber contest, which is awesome.)

The perfect draft strategy works really well but when you're getting great value on Brady Brees and Rodgers in a draft (taking them below their ADP) you don't pass them up.

I think Dodds should be getting some decent heat though if Garrard doesn't pan out. I really don't have a problem with him taking those other guys in certain draft since the value may of been there. The problem I have is he told people to bank on Garrard as a viable #1 & now after 1 week he's like the 16th ranked QB going forward. Meaning he dropped him 4 spots after week 1 & that he was ranked low last week because of the bad matchup.. Something is not adding up.. I'm so glad I have at least another viable option than Garrard but he's not looking very good with his dropping of Garrard after week 1.. I mean the 16th ranked QB going forward is a middle of the road #2 in a 12 team league..

 

[LittlePhatty]

I'll stick with Hasselbeck this week.

Hopefully Garrard has a big game so I can trade him away.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have both QB in this game. Who would you recommend starting, Chase, Warner or Garrard?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Garrard looks to be a better option than Big Ben this week. I was already planning on plugging him in this week before I saw the thread. I like a website that make bold predictions and stand by them. Should be an interesting thread for the week to come.

i'm in the same boat, Big Ben and Garrard. and i'm leaning toward Garrard this week.

Why? Is Tillman back? They just lost Urlacher. The Bears D-Line looked good in WK1 as they got pressure on Rogers, but the Pack didn't run very well. Looks very similar to what Ben had to face v TEN, in my opinion. I think PIT passing game is a decent bet this week.To me the single most convincing argument for JAX success this weekend v ARI is the point Chase made about ARI traveling to the east coast. But, that’s a team tip, not necessarily a Garrard tip. I'd make a wager on JAX winning before I made one on Garrard having a startable game.

 

[cjack]

If you need about 225 passing yards and no more than 1 TD to win your match-up, Garrard is your best bet.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

can the Garrard justification by the staff please stop? it really is silly

 

[bostonfred]

I have both QB in this game. Who would you recommend starting, Chase, Warner or Garrard?

I'd start Chase.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have both QB in this game. Who would you recommend starting, Chase, Warner or Garrard?

I'd start Chase.

He certainly has a better database.

 

[Chase Stuart]

can the Garrard justification by the staff please stop? it really is silly

If he does poorly this week, sure. If he does great, will the Garrard hating please stop?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have both QB in this game. Who would you recommend starting, Chase, Warner or Garrard?

I'd start Chase.

He certainly has a better database.

Dodds has Warner/Garrard right next to each other in his projections this week. I agree with that. I think this one is too close to call comfortably, but I'd probably roll with Garrard. I wouldn't argue against someone who wanted to start Warner, though.

 

[Buffaloes]

If you are looking for a QB to come out of left field this week, why wouldn't Jason Campbell (vs. StL) be a better option than Garrard? I seriously don't see how Garrard will see top 5 #s at QB this week. He's a mediocre talent with a mediocre WR corps and it's not like they are playing a porou pass defense. Maybe MJD has a long TD off a screen or something but I just don't see Garrard lighting up the Cards this week.

Campbell, on the other hand, is just as mediocre with what appears to be better receiving options and plays a much worse defense.

 

[Ghoti]

I’m rolling with Garrard this week. Truth be told, it’s not a horribly difficult decision - my only other QB is Palmer, and I saw how Green Bay’s new 3-4 defense made Cutler look like a fool.

At this risk of sounding like a kissarse, I have to give credit to Chase for sticking his neck out here. I like it – there’s too many FF websites that will create cheetsheets listing Brees, Brady, etc. right down the line from their prior stats. I have to give props to a staff member who will risk both his, and to a lesser extent, FBGs reputation by being bold while coming up with a reasonable argument for going against the grain.

I just hope reality backs you up, dude. And if Garrard craps the bed, I'll never listen to another word you say.

 

[Grahamburn]

I feel like there are a lot of 2010 Footballguys' subscriptions riding on David Garrard's performance this season.

 

[Devil in the Detail]

I feel like there are a lot of 2010 Footballguys' subscriptions riding on David Garrard's performance this season.

True.

 

[footballnerd]

Garrard looks to be a better option than Big Ben this week. I was already planning on plugging him in this week before I saw the thread. I like a website that make bold predictions and stand by them. Should be an interesting thread for the week to come.

i'm in the same boat, Big Ben and Garrard. and i'm leaning toward Garrard this week.

I got Big Ben too and I'm going Garrard, partially because of how CHI D limited Rodgers last week and because I'm confident Garrard is good for 250 and 2TDs.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

can the Garrard justification by the staff please stop? it really is silly

If he does poorly this week, sure. If he does great, will the Garrard hating please stop?

OK you got it. He has to throw for over 275 and 2 td. If so, I will stop bashin him. Deal? Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

who on staff is pimping David Garrard so much that it is bothering you?

 

[David Yudkin]

Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

who on staff is pimping David Garrard so much that it is bothering you?

Dodds has him at QB14/100th overall in the Top 250 heading forward. Is that really pimping him exceedingly high?

 

[footballnerd]

As somebody who is currently feeling that I may have put too much stock into Dodds' "perfect draft" article this year, I really hope you are right.

Dodds said it was a "losing play" to draft a QB before round 8 in his WCOFF perfect draft article, then posted his WCOFF teams with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers.Chase touted the strength of Arizona's secondary and picked them in his DBC article and is now saying a middle of the pack QB is a top 5 start this week because he's playing against Arizona.What exactly am I paying for here?The perfect draft strategy works really well but when you're getting great value on Brady Brees and Rodgers in a draft (taking them below their ADP) you don't pass them up.(Other than the subscriber contest, which is awesome.)

The perfect draft strategy works really well but when you're getting great value on Brady Brees and Rodgers in a draft (taking them below their ADP) you don't pass them up.

I think Dodds should be getting some decent heat though if Garrard doesn't pan out. I really don't have a problem with him taking those other guys in certain draft since the value may of been there. The problem I have is he told people to bank on Garrard as a viable #1 & now after 1 week he's like the 16th ranked QB going forward. Meaning he dropped him 4 spots after week 1 & that he was ranked low last week because of the bad matchup.. Something is not adding up.. I'm so glad I have at least another viable option than Garrard but he's not looking very good with his dropping of Garrard after week 1.. I mean the 16th ranked QB going forward is a middle of the road #2 in a 12 team league..

Ya I hear ya, I actually drafted Garrard and Big Ben knowing I'd have to get creative depending on who they're facing. Wasn't expecting a plug n play.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I'm even thinking about playing Troy Williamson

Good move as I cut him this week.

 

[RamMan]

McNabb owner here. I've got to decide between DG and Trent Edwards, who's at home vs a porous TB secondary (they were repeatedly burned in the 2nd half last week vs DAL). Leaning Edwards at this point - he's got better receivers and goes against a worse secondary IMO. The wild card of course is the odd history of the AZ D playing poorly on the east coast. Not sure that's something you can hang your hat on, bit it is spooky.. .

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

who on staff is pimping David Garrard so much that it is bothering you?

gee I dont know a staffer started a thread tellin me to start him.For a couple years now the "perfect draft" article has basically centered around grabbing Garrard as your QB1. pimpin is goin on

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

who on staff is pimping David Garrard so much that it is bothering you?

gee I dont know a staffer started a thread tellin me to start him.For a couple years now the "perfect draft" article has basically centered around grabbing Garrard as your QB1. pimpin is goin on

so 1 out of 30 staffers starting a thread on a player is too much for you? even though some of us on staff have disagreed with the argument that he's a great start in this same exact thread?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

who on staff is pimping David Garrard so much that it is bothering you?

gee I dont know a staffer started a thread tellin me to start him.For a couple years now the "perfect draft" article has basically centered around grabbing Garrard as your QB1. pimpin is goin on

so 1 out of 30 staffers starting a thread on a player is too much for you? even though some of us on staff have disagreed with the argument that he's a great start in this same exact thread?

man u like to argue with me dont you ruds.Chase and Dodds seem to have man love for him Im just asking it to stop.Thanks for pointing out the errors of their ways.LOL

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

I have both QB in this game. Who would you recommend starting, Chase, Warner or Garrard?

I'd start Chase.

He certainly has a better database.

Dodds has Warner/Garrard right next to each other in his projections this week. I agree with that. I think this one is too close to call comfortably, but I'd probably roll with Garrard. I wouldn't argue against someone who wanted to start Warner, though.

This is CRAZY talk.

 

[SuperGreen]

Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

who on staff is pimping David Garrard so much that it is bothering you?

gee I dont know a staffer started a thread tellin me to start him.For a couple years now the "perfect draft" article has basically centered around grabbing Garrard as your QB1. pimpin is goin on

so 1 out of 30 staffers starting a thread on a player is too much for you? even though some of us on staff have disagreed with the argument that he's a great start in this same exact thread?

lol, cmon... everywhere you turn here, someone is pumping up garrard. this isn't just a one-week or one-person thing going on.personally i find it amusing.

 

[Byron_nyc]

I feel the Garrard love generaly -- he's won some games for me as that guaranteed point scorer in the right matchup, right lineup. And I do trust Chase.

As to this week, as a McNabb owner, I was thinking Trent Edwards over Garrard. Edwards looked good Monday night and the Tampa secondary looked terrible. TO and Lee Evans eventually are going to get targeted downfield. Thoughts on Edwards v. McNabb?

 

[SuperGreen]

I feel the Garrard love generaly -- he's won some games for me as that guaranteed point scorer in the right matchup, right lineup. And I do trust Chase.

As to this week, as a McNabb owner, I was thinking Trent Edwards over Garrard. Edwards looked good Monday night and the Tampa secondary looked terrible. TO and Lee Evans eventually are going to get targeted downfield. Thoughts on Edwards v. McNabb?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showforum=12

 

[Crusaderfan]

I feel like there are a lot of 2010 Footballguys' subscriptions riding on David Garrard's performance this season.

I went "all in" this season with the wait on a QB theory - I've been uneasy ever since, sitting here with Garrard and Schaub as my QB's. Kind of feel like a guy that brought a knife to a gunfight

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Will the staff pimpin then stop if he dont?

who on staff is pimping David Garrard so much that it is bothering you?

gee I dont know a staffer started a thread tellin me to start him.For a couple years now the "perfect draft" article has basically centered around grabbing Garrard as your QB1. pimpin is goin on

so 1 out of 30 staffers starting a thread on a player is too much for you? even though some of us on staff have disagreed with the argument that he's a great start in this same exact thread?

lol, cmon... everywhere you turn here, someone is pumping up garrard. this isn't just a one-week or one-person thing going on.personally i find it amusing.

link?Dodds liked him in the preseason, and Chase is obviously on board. Who else we talking about if we're going to assume the entire FBG staff is on the Garrard bandwagon?what was his consenus ranking among all FBG staff? what were the projections like for him from Woods, Henry, and Tremblay?EDITodds had him projected to finish 10thHenry had him projected to finish 11thWood had him projected to finish 11thTremblay had him projected to finish 7thLooks like his consensus ranking was 12th or so, which means the staff as a whole was probably a bit lower on him than all of the people who submitted projections.OK, I guess people were pretty high on him, but he did finish as QB11 in 2008 so it sounds like they are just expecting more of the same. What I normally expect from Garrad is steady, consistent production with limited downside and not a ton of upside.I had him ranked 15th.

 

[meeka]

I think I will go against the rankings for the week and start P. Manning. Even if Garrard has a good week I would be way too uneasy making that switch.

 

[Ghoti]

Right. I understand you have different opinions among the staff, and that’s a good thing - we wouldn’t all want you in lockstep.

But to say 1 out of 30 is a little bit disingenuous, Aaron. I think you are aware of Dodds’ article. And Dodds/Chase do represent two of the most prominent voices around here. Right or wrong, FBGs as an entity has hitched itself to Garrard this year. A lot of subscribers drafted Garrard based on Dodds' rationale. And I am guessing a lot of people will start Garrard based on this thread. If Garrard goes down in flames, fine, this is an inexact hobby and it happens. But, if he sucks, please don’t go around saying that the majority opinion of FBG staff members was against Garrard.

Like I said above, I’m glad Chase is sticking his neck out here. I hope he’s right. And if he is, I fully expect him to toot his horn.

 

[meeka]

I think I will go against the rankings for the week and start P. Manning. Even if Garrard has a good week I would be way too uneasy making that switch.

I don't think the people contemplating Garrard have Manning on their rosters.

I won't say where they are ranked, but Garrard is 2 places higher than Manning this week.

 

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

With Mcnabb out this week I was leaning towards Eli over Garard, but with Chase putting his rep on the line for Garrard I have to think about this.

Garrard HAS to be better then last week, but that is not saying much. The one pt I do like is the 1pm East start for Arizona, they have been bad at this spot, especially last year.

 

[Sputnikv8]

If there wasn't controversial opinions like this -- what else would we talk about? People asking for it to stop, should give it a rest. They like Garrard. So what? Other so-called message boards are all filled with WDIS threads, is that more fun to discuss? NO! Pimp away I say. I'll listen. I'll disagree and start whoever I want.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I entered this thread thinking that maybe after reading 3 pages I might start Garrard over Schaub this week.

I now think Im pretty sure the im going to drop Garrard for either Edwards, Sanchez, or Campbell and start 1 of them.

I wouldnt be surprised if he does decent, but I think it's more of a risk to start him and hope he gets 250 & 2 as opposed to rolling with any of the above who have a better opportunity to have much better games than Garrard, while also being safer bets.

 

[Buffaloes]

I entered this thread thinking that maybe after reading 3 pages I might start Garrard over Schaub this week.I now think Im pretty sure the im going to drop Garrard for either Edwards, Sanchez, or Campbell and start 1 of them.I wouldnt be surprised if he does decent, but I think it's more of a risk to start him and hope he gets 250 & 2 as opposed to rolling with any of the above who have a better opportunity to have much better games than Garrard, while also being safer bets.

Same here. No one has supported or refuted my claim that Campbell has a much higher ceiling this week but I fully expect him to have a good game against StL this week. I'm just not seeing Garrard as a top 5 QB this or any week.

 

[footballnerd]

I feel like there are a lot of 2010 Footballguys' subscriptions riding on David Garrard's performance this season.

I went "all in" this season with the wait on a QB theory - I've been uneasy ever since, sitting here with Garrard and Schaub as my QB's. Kind of feel like a guy that brought a knife to a gunfight

I think by the end of the season you'll be happy with your two QBs, that's a nice combo to spot start based on matchups. ITS ONLY WEEK 1!!

 

[cubbie5150]

I'll stick with Hasselbeck this week.Hopefully Garrard has a big game so I can trade him away.

I have a choice between Hass, Garrard & Cutler...Cutler is a sure no-go for me. I'm tempted to give Garrard a shot, but since I own MJD, I'll likely wuss-out & stick w/ Hass because Jac offense doesn't look good enough right now to risk using 2 players

 

[Wadsworth]

Like I said above, I’m glad Chase is sticking his neck out here. I hope he’s right. And if he is, I fully expect him to toot his horn.

Me too. There are plenty of people around here that can tell you to start Brees against the Lions. I like the bold calls. You aren't going to win any league worth playing in if you don't take some chances.